Nanoco Group Plc

-0.16 (-0.88%)
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Nanoco Group Plc LSE:NANO London Ordinary Share GB00B01JLR99 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.16 -0.88% 17.94 286,510 16:35:07
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
18.12 18.42 17.94 17.94 17.94
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Coml Physical, Biologcl Resh 2.47 -4.70 -1.50 - 57.85
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
17:51:27 O 44 17.938 GBX

Nanoco (NANO) Latest News

Nanoco (NANO) Discussions and Chat

Nanoco Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
06/6/202321:55Nanoco/Dow - 2016 a transformational year for CFQD34,512
08/5/202316:06Nanoco Technologies Ltd16
05/5/202307:10Nanoco - Cadmium-Free Quantum Dots - World Leader15,683
28/3/202320:17Directors/officers who went to jail-
28/3/202319:50No D&O insurance for fraud-

Add a New Thread

Nanoco (NANO) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2023-06-06 16:51:2817.94447.89O
2023-06-06 16:26:1217.941,336239.68O
2023-06-06 16:25:5217.942,946528.51O
2023-06-06 15:56:3617.943,510629.73O
2023-06-06 15:35:0717.94128,95223,133.99UT

Nanoco (NANO) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 25/5/2023 21:50 by paul planet earth
Brace yourself for tomorrow's RNS we could hit light speed pretty fast and gain some media news as well..This is a manufacture and supply deal.. better crank up the Runcon factory to full capacity Scotty.

"The collaboration will provide Nanoco with an opportunity to 'supply its CFQD® quantum dots' to the Chinese market, where focus is shifting from cadmium-based to more environmentally friendly products"

Nanoco and POE Sign Licensing and Collaboration Agreement

Published on 25/5/2023

Nanoco Technologies Limited (Nanoco) and Guangdong Poly Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. (POE) have announced a Licensing and Collaboration Agreement. Under the agreement, Nanoco and POE will partner on the development of cadmium-free quantum dot products for various applications including advanced displays and lighting films.

The collaboration will provide Nanoco with an opportunity to supply its CFQD® quantum dots to the Chinese market, where focus is shifting from cadmium-based to more environmentally friendly products. POE’s proprietary resin, film and encapsulation technology complements Nanoco’s patent protected QD offering, with POE already counting major players in the Chinese display market as customers. The collaboration between the two companies will combine the respective advantages of both partners’ existing technologies, materials and equipment. This unique offering will give major Chinese display companies the ability to offer local customers a greater choice of environmentally friendly and safe products and solutions. It will also allow them to offer their products in overseas territories without fear of further changes to environmental and consumer protection regulations such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) regulations in Europe.

Brian Tenner, Chief Executive Officer of Nanoco, commented:

“Our unique combination of recently validated IP and CFQD® quantum dots for use in display applications is an important source of value for the Group as we continue to pursue our strategy to deliver commercial production quantities of our nano-materials. POE’s offering of resin film systems and coating capabilities to carry our materials is a highly complementary partnership for Nanoco.

“Under this agreement, we will be able to distribute our cadmium-free quantum dot products to the Chinese market, an increasingly valuable global market place, with Nanoco’s materials covering a multitude of potential end user applications.”

Dr. LI Yang, Chief Executive Officer of POE, commented:

“This agreement marks an important step in the development of both Nanoco and POE as leading players in the optoelectronic sector. The collaboration will allow Nanoco to expand its reach into the Chinese market and provide customers with more environmentally friendly products. With the help of both companies’ resources, the two parties can create innovative products and strategies to revolutionise the sector and challenge the status quo. We are looking forward to getting started and seeing the fruits of this agreement in the Age of Change.”

Notes for editors

About Guangdong Poly Optoelectronics Co., Ltd

Based in Guangdong province,China, POE is considered an influential and innovative company, especially in quantum dot and metal oxide nanoparticles technology and advanced display application field (such as QLED/OLED/MicroLEDs). POE has accumulated profound QD R&D capability and rich experiences of QD film in-house mass production. POE has supplied QD Films/QDPR/QDINK/ to top tier consumer electronic enterprises in China. POE has received investment from TCL capital and GTFG (Guangdong Technology Financial Group), along with other VCs. (

About Nanoco Technologies Limited

Nanoco, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nanoco Group PLC, (LSE: NANO) harnesses the power of nano-materials. Nano-materials are materials with dimensions typically in the range 1 – 100 nm. Nano-materials have a range of useful properties, including optical and electronic. Quantum dots are a subclass of nano-material that have size-dependent optical and electronic properties. The Group produces quantum dots and other nano-materials. Within the sphere of quantum dots, the Group exploits different characteristics of the quantum dots to target different performance criteria that are attractive to specific markets or end-user applications such as the Display, Sensor and Electronics markets. An interesting property of quantum dots is their absorption spectrum. Nanoco’s HEATWAVE™ quantum dots can be tuned to absorb light at different wavelengths across the near-infrared spectrum, rendering them useful for applications including image sensors. Another interesting property of quantum dots is photoluminescence: the emission of longer wavelength light upon excitation by light of a shorter wavelength. The colour of light emitted depends on the particle size. Nanoco’s CFQD® quantum dots are free of cadmium and other toxic heavy metals, and can be tuned to emit light at different wavelengths across the visible and infrared spectrum, rendering them useful for a wide range of applications including displays, lighting and biological imaging.

Nanoco was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Runcorn, UK, with a US subsidiary, Nanoco Inc., in Concord, MA. Nanoco continues to build out a world-class, patent-protected IP portfolio generated both by its own innovation engine, as well as through acquisition.

Nanoco is listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange and trades under the ticker symbol NANO. For further information please visit:

Posted at 25/5/2023 06:25 by paul planet earth
Seems the modus operandi which few spotted (including myself) was that both LOAM and RG were in concert to gain influence over multiple boards in investments that they both share and by way of having direct influence over the directors and NED's through their placements or other roles that they have..Nanoco being one prime example..

That way they can directly influence board decisions and have access to information that is not available to the wider retail investor base..Afterall why invest in the potential 'long term' growth of the business (and associated risks) and any court case with Samsung with risk of a lengthy appeal process, when you can play the market 'short term', make a handsome near 'zero risk' profit, then exit, leaving retail investors to pick up the tab so to speak..which is exactly what happened at Nanoco..

Think about the BT RNS where the risk of a lengthy appeal process following a succesful Texas trial verdict was being mitigated by further litigation in Germany and China...was this a deliberate ruse for retail investors to keep pumping the price.

Or the formal letters that BT referenced to last year being sent to other IP date we have heard nothing more on this subject from BT...was this another ruse that both LOAM and RG orchestrated behind the scenes.

It seems that this was the influence behind BT's behaviour with those two rather oddly timed RNS's back in January and with reference to "Lower end settlement model as already shared", shared with who exactly,.... LOAM and RG but NOT the wider retail investor base who were being manipulated and misinformed to their financial benefit..IMO...

The FCA should start a formal investigation into how these two investors operate in 'unison' and 'interact' across multiple small companies with their combined influence on company boards decision making with access to price sensitive information.

To summarise I believe retail investors were being 'played' all along by both LOAM and RG..they were never committed to Nanoco's long term future only commited to making a quick buck at the expense of retail investors..hence why the share price has collapsed 70%...and why RG exited and LOAM has materially reduced its stake in the doubt bagging a huge return and disappearing while the dust settles.

It wouldn't surprise me that there is a catalogue of similar share price outcomes across the various investments in companies they both hold 'together'.

If Hamoodi's allegations ever get to court there could be wider ramifications on LOAM and RG with public media interest (especially the huge losess many small investors incurr impacting their pension pots and ISA investments) with possible changes in FCA rules and regulations over how investor groups interact with company boards, influence them, and have access to price sensitive information.

In fact this could be a front page financial media scandal IMO..


Posts: 20

Price: 18.50

No Opinion

Reasons for LOAM+RG' Significant Control Over the Board?Today 03:46
Year: LOAM+RG ownership vs AGM voting rate

2022: 30.5% v 34.3%

2021: 38.85% v 45.8%

2020: 37.16% v 42.7%

2019: 35.14 v 28.1%

Plus the board members are/were NEDs or otherwise closely associated with other LOAM/RG portfolio companies (see Hamoodi's presentation). Chris Richards for example is currently chairman of both Nanoco and Plant health care. He probably feels indebted to LOAM and RG and needs to maintain good relationships with them for job security, including additional/future NED positions at other companies..

Posted at 20/5/2023 09:25 by starr007
QL: "It would be the end of the company if Nigel Pickett were to resign. Is that what you really want? If so, you are even more bitter and stupid than I thought."

The current market cap being £11M below cash is unacceptable. Shareholders are giving negative value for the IP and the organic business and think the current D&O are liability. None of the D&O have any track record in growing business. Tenner was an account/CFO all his life before joining Nanoco and doesn't have any history of managing a company. Richards as the chair of Plant Health has decimated the share price during his 10+ year tenure. Pickett was a researcher before Nanoco (the first and only company he ever worked for) and has no history of generating profit in his 20+ year career at Nanoco. What makes you think they can suddenly grow business and generate profit? If Nanoco's technology works and is competitive, why has nobody signed up for commercial volume production all these years? By comparison, Nanosys sold 140 tons of QD materials. All top ten global TV brands are their customers and seem to be doing much better than Nanoco. Why do you think that's the case?

▪ Numerous development, license, manufacturing and supply agreements with Dow, Merck, Osram, DuPont, Wah Hong, etc. have not led to any commercial volume production. Is Nanoco’s technology even viable?
▪ The board claims the Runcorn lab, languishing for years with no commercial volume production, is built to produce £130M of QD materials - at what price and volume, and for what customers?
▪ Nanoco’s expected timing of commercial volume production has been continuously delayed for years. Consequently, shareholders seriously question the credibility of the board’s latest guidance for volume production (by year end) announced in the 28/3/23 interim results.

Posted at 20/5/2023 06:37 by paul planet earth
So why wasn't the settlement models valuations shared with Edison for public disclosure and the reference to $200m to $250m for damages in the USA alone removed.

"Nanoco has only provided third-party analysts and commentators with information that Nanoco has publicly disclosed."

But Nanoco didn't share the settlement models with Edison thats the whole point knowing that Edison didnt have the full picture they continued allowing them to publish misleading information..And added to that if Edison are a research group how come they weren't privy to court papers alledgily in the public domain..They are supposed to be research analysts and leading industry experts they couldn't even find them to edit and amend their former publications!

Or are they simply paid to post what Nanoco sees fit and tells them.

19. Further, Nanoco has neither sourced nor endorsed the opinions of third party analysts and commentators (including Edison Group Limited) as to the merits and prospects of its case for damages[2]. In full compliance with its disclosure obligations, Nanoco has only provided third-party analysts and commentators with information that Nanoco has publicly disclosed.

Posted at 19/5/2023 16:16 by quantum leaper1
“Dear Sir/Madam,

Re:       Nanoco/Group Plc (“Nanoco”;) Response to Pallas Letter 10 March 2023
1.              We refer to your letter dated 10 March 2023 and our letter of 17 March 2023.

2.              We address the allegations made in your letter to the extent they are made against Nanoco and its directors. No admission is to be inferred from an absence of response to any particular fact or matter alleged (express or implied) against Nanoco and its directors. No waiver of legal professional privilege nor without prejudice privilege is made or intended by the content of this letter.

3.              For the avoidance of doubt we do not represent either Richard Griffiths, ORA Capital Limited, Serendipity Capital Limited or Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Limited (“LOAM”). Accordingly, we do not respond to any allegations you have made against Richard Griffiths, LOAM or any other associated entities except to the extent we consider relevant and appropriate to do so in addressing the allegations made against Nanoco and its directors.

4.              Our clients have undertaken a detailed historical examination of the events in question, which we have carefully reviewed. The following account is drawn from that review.

LOAM Equity and Debt Finance

5.              The financing transactions entered into with LOAM and others were in the best interests of Nanoco and agreed in the normal course of business on an arms-length basis.

6.              In November 2017, a Nanoco shareholders’ general meeting approved the equity fund raise of £8.6M (gross) underwritten by LOAM1 and further, also explicitly approved the right of LOAM to appoint a nonexecutive director at any time thereafter if LOAM’s shareholding exceeded 20%2.

7.              In July 2020, LOAM underwrote an equity fund raise (up to £2.2M)3.

8.             In July 2020, litigation funding was secured for the Samsung Litigation (which was expected to cost the Company many millions of dollars) after a competitive tender process for which 5 specialist litigation funding firms were invited to participate.4

9.              In June 2021, it was determined by Nanoco, which continued to be loss making, that it required additional funds to ensure it remained a going concern for the next year having regard to its publicly disclosed projected annual rate of expenditure and cash at bank as at 31 January 2021.

10.   ;        At that time, uncertainty had been heightened about the outcome of the Samsung Litigation. This is because in May 2021 (as publicly announced by Nanoco) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’) had decided to institute a review of all five inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) in the Samsung Litigation in which the validity of the patents in the litigation was in issue.

11.   ;        No underwriter was forthcoming at that time and Nanoco’s advisers considered that there was a real risk that unless discounted (with a highly dilutive effect) an equity issue which was not underwritten would not be successful. In the circumstances, a non-dilutive issue of non-amortising unsecured loan notes in the amount of £3.15 M (gross) was agreed with LOAM and Ora Capital with an interest rate of 12% plus a 105% bonus if the Samsung Litigation proved to be successful. The terms were considered good given the fact that the debt was unsecured, Nanoco was loss-making, the heightened litigation risks around the IPR’s, and the outcome of the Samsung Litigation, which was by no means assured to be in the Company’s favour, would not be known until an uncertain date in the future. Nanoco and its sponsor and broker, Peel Hunt, after proper consideration, were comfortable that the unsecured loan notes were issued on normal commercial terms and that they therefore fell within the related party exemption contained in LR11, Annex 1, para 4(3).

12.   ;        It is not the case that in June 2021 a more competitive offer of funding was made by the Baupost Group LLC (“Baupost̶1;) as alleged. In June 2021, Baupost enquired whether a loan for a revised minimum amount of £10-15 M minimum might be of interest if secured against an appropriate Nanoco IP portfolio. The minimum loan amount was considered too high for Nanoco’s operational requirements and, in any event, Nanoco’s IP portfolio was not available as security as it had previously been charged to secure the Samsung Litigation funding agreed a year earlier.

13.   ;        Indeed, we note that your client, Tariq Hamoodi, stated in an email dated 13 October 2021 of the Baupost expression of interest, “While I understand why the potential Baupost transaction did not appeal to [sic], I congratulate you on the financing you obtained from your key shareholders earlier this year. From a shareholder’s perspective, I think the transaction was much more attractive than what Baupost could have offered.”

14.   ;        The approach of Nanoco to this fund raise was entirely consistent with Nanoco’s financial position at the time and in its best interests.

Alleged Misstatements Regarding Samsung Litigation

15. There is no legitimate basis for your client’s assertion that there were repeated misleading statements as to the merits and settlement prospects for Nanoco.

16.   ;        Regular and multiple disclosures of relevant information about the Samsung Litigation were made by Nanoco on the RNS and in its interim and annual reports[1]. Those disclosures consistently referred to the wide range of significant risks that could impact any outcome of the litigation process. They also consistently referred to a broad range of potential damages models that could be applied in the litigation. The disclosures did not extend to an assessment of merits or an opinion on prospects with respect to damages that may be awarded, beyond referencing the potential transformative impact to shareholder value if the patent litigation were to be successful. The Samsung Litigation pleadings and motions of Nanoco and of Samsung together with the court’s interim orders were publicly available and provided the optimal source of information from which an assessment of the merits of the case could and should have been made in the conduct of any due diligence by an investor.

17.   ;        During the Samsung Litigation, Nanoco consistently stated in its interim and annual reports that the outcome of any trial was uncertain as was the possible damages to be awarded by a jury if Nanoco did win at trial.  In July 2022, a high level overview of Nanoco’s three experts’ damages models was published on the court record showing:

•       Nanoco expert’s low damages model value as $43.9m (the Dow approach)
•       Nanoco expert’s mid damages model value as $136.2m (the Allenby approach)
•       Nanoco expert’s high damages model value as $412m (the Credelle approach)
These damages models were disclosed on the public court record and were subsequently discussed in UK investor share chat forums.

18.   ;        In addition, shortly after the court published the information above, the Court also published commentary on Samsung’s views of the appropriate level of damages if infringement was found to have occurred. Samsung planned to present their expert’s opinion to the jury that damages should be lower than the $28m Samsung had paid in a license fee to one of Nanoco’s competitors for access to a portfolio twice the size of Nanoco’s.

19.   ;        Further, Nanoco has neither sourced nor endorsed the opinions of third party analysts and commentators (including Edison Group Limited) as to the merits and prospects of its case for damages[2]. In full compliance with its disclosure obligations, Nanoco has only provided third-party analysts and commentators with information that Nanoco has publicly disclosed.

20.   ;        The settlement achieved by Nanoco generated a transformational amount of value for Nanoco’s shareholders. The gross settlement value is more than three times Nanoco’s low case damages model and avoided the risks associated with continued litigation and the adverse impact from the time value of money in an appeals process that could have extended for years (as has been the case in other patent litigation)7.

21. Your alleged concerns that Nanoco failed to disclose (confidential, legally privileged) merits and prospects assessments as to “the true position as regards damages estimates and, therefore, settlement prospects in the Samsung Litigation” are impossible to fathom. Nothing could be more damaging to the commercial interests of Nanoco in the conduct of the Samsung Litigation than to publicly disclose information that could have seriously compromised the outcome of any court hearing and the negotiating position of Nanoco. As noted above Nanoco did not issue statements on the prospects regarding damages amounts (for obvious reasons) and it had consistently and regularly explained there were multiple ways to calculate damages and that the damages model adopted would ultimately be determined by a jury if the matter did not settle earlier.

Nanoco Share Sales by LOAM et al
24.   ;        No inappropriate disclosure of unpublished price sensitive information in connection with the Samsung Litigation has been made by Nanoco to Richard Griffiths, ORA Capital Limited, Serendipity Capital Limited or LOAM.

25.   ;        To the extent you make allegations against Richard Griffiths and ORA Capital Limited and Serendipity Capital Limited and/or other associated entities or Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Limited (“LOAM”) these are not matters for our clients to address. 

26. Your clients’ highly speculative allegations against Nanoco and its directors are utterly without foundation for the reasons outlined above. In the circumstances, Nanoco does not intend to take the further actions requested by your clients. 

Yours faithfully 

Reed Smith LLP

1  £8.6m gross was raised (equivalent to 16.7% of the then issued share capital). 50% of the issue was taken up by LOAM.
2  This right was exercised in August 2021 when its shareholding was approximately 27% with the appointment becoming effective on1 September 2021
3   £3.4 M (gross) was raised of which 53.99% was sourced from shares allotted to LOAM
4   5 established litigation funders were invited to submit funding terms of which 4 submitted terms and the most competitive was selected
[1] Annual Report and Accounts for FY20, FY21 and FY22. Interim Accounts for FY20, FY21, FY22. Shareholder presentations twice per annum in FY20, FY21 and FY22, and a multitude of other RNS announcements regarding financial results, AGM’s, fundraising activities and the litigation itself.
[1] It is neither appropriate nor reasonably possible for Nanoco to assess, without possession of all the information held by any third-party analyst or commentator, whether in fact they may have had reasonable grounds for any particular expression of opinion on merits or prospects as to damages or outcome in the Samsung Litigation. 7 For example, VirnetX Inc., et al v. Apple Inc. “

Posted at 19/5/2023 13:25 by coiin stein
something to moan about ... RNS


Nanoco has sought to engage with Mr Hamoodi, including responding to his initial letter. A copy of Nanoco's letter to Mr Hamoodi is available here

Nanoco's Board continues to emphatically reject Mr Hamoodi's speculative concerns about certain actions and activities involving Nanoco, and does not believe the proposed Board changes are in the best interests of shareholders.

As previously announced, the Directors of Nanoco have no intention of stepping down from the Board and are confident that the Board's actions and statements over the period of the Samsung litigation were in line with its corporate governance duties, obligations and standards.

Christopher Richards, Non-Executive Chairman of Nanoco, said

"We continue to emphatically reject Mr Hamoodi's speculative concerns. The Board welcomes scrutiny, but his misinterpretation of the past, and consciously selective and factually inaccurate disclosure, including the publication of heavily edited videos, presents a number of events out of context to create a false narrative to mislead our shareholders.

"The proposed Board changes are not in the best interests of the Company or its shareholders, and would give undue influence to a disgruntled minority shareholder. Nanoco is at an exciting inflection point, with the litigation proceeds fully underpinning our organic business which has significant growth opportunities.

"Mr Hamoodi's proposals would be damaging and disruptive to Nanoco's future prospects and, if successful, would result in an exodus of key talent from the business."

Posted at 09/5/2023 23:38 by pj84
Echoridge like Kooba says, there is a lot to agree with in your post 9 May '23 - 09:27 - 34042 of 34053, however, I disagree with your conclusion about the FCA. Firstly, the FCA is not renowned for pursuing investigations without someone presenting them with evidence that they feel requires an investigation and they are also not renowned with doing that at speed.

For all we know, there may well be ongoing correspondence between Pallas Partners and Nanoco and if there is, TH would not at this stage have requested an investigation by the FCA. If he has done so, then the fact that there is no news does not mean that the FCA are not either considering whether to investigate or whether they are currently doing so.

I also don’t agree with your conclusion that if there was any merit in the Pallas Partners letter, that LOAM’s internal compliance or legal advisers would make them desist from any buying or selling of Nanoco shares after the letter, on the contrary they would continue do so, to support their contention that they bought and sold shares in Nanoco irrespective of any price sensitive information and that they did so based on the share price at the time, particularly, as they had started to do that before the letter and it would make perfect sense to continue to do so after the letter to support their position, particularly as Nanoco had issued a statement that they rejected the contents of the letter.

I do agree that the conversion of non-voting financial instruments into voting shares by TH was done so that he could either call an EGM or indicate that he may do so.

I can’t see Nanoco offering TH a representative board seat, as that would be seen by most shareholders as an admission of guilt as there is no way that would have happened without the letter.

I can only see TH calling an EGM after any other avenues have been exhausted and whether at that time, he decides there is any benefit.

My conclusion is that your speculation is no better than anyone else’s and I certainly don’t know what has happened since the initial exchange of legal letters and unless something else becomes public I have no idea whether things are continuing behind the scenes or not but the fact there is no news doesn’t mean things aren’t happening.

Posted at 05/5/2023 08:43 by coiin stein
morning moaners, whingers and bedwetters …
Attempting a rational debate with the thick person’s thick person, is akin to hoping to win an argument with a signpost.

NANO share price looking a bit more perky today, with the 50dma not far off.

Posted at 25/4/2023 06:43 by paul planet earth
Kooba..a very good point..'they' don't want to discuss Nanoco but prefer to attack posters who are critical of the mgt team. Being a LTH I've gone from being extremely positive to extremely negative..Don't get me wrong here I still see value in Nanoco and in their tech with potentially a very good future if they can get some deals through the doors....but its the mgt team still with echoes of the past with their current shenagins behaviour around the Samsung settlement and alleged involvement with 'Preferred' investor groups like LOAM to the detriment of the wider retail investor base. This is exactly why the share price has floored in a matter of weeks back to 2019 levels because all trust and credibility of the Nanoco mgt team has gone out the window especially regarding trading updates and future prospects which casts strong doubts over their reliability and accuracy. If you want to draw a recent legal comparison look no further than Netlist inc. being a prime example to date and in a similar situation as Nanoco but whose share price has more than doubled in the last few weeks compared to Nanoco's which has more than halved!

Netlist inc will not only get a decent legal award from Samsung and no doubt on going future royalties...I note Samsung has yet to state whether they will apppeal the willfull verdict against them an interesting note I might add whereas Nanoco got a rotten net lump sum well below both broadcast and expected levels and gave up on future royaties the very icing on the cake while selling off who knows what IP and giving away for free any restrictions for useage...Look on the brightside Brian Tennor summed it up in a nice little Power Point two box presentation 👍 that we validated Nanoco's IP and secure its financial future...It seems the market doesn't agree...What he's failed to see is LOAM just using him for their dirty work and if the share price continues to decline and with no news on any future deals they will simply leave him out to dry if things heat up with any attempts to oust him or the mgt team through an EGM or the FCA start a formal investigation into matters.

Netlist, Inc.
Q1 Earnings Call • 17:00 BST
5.49 USD +3.04 (124.08%)past 6 months
24 Apr, 18:23 BST • Disclaimer

Nanoco Group PLC
17.90 GBX -15.30 (-46.08%)past 6 months
24 Apr, 17:53 BST • Disclaimer

Posted at 23/4/2023 12:03 by paul planet earth
Netlist Inc.

Share price went up 21% on Friday at 4pm local time when the Netlist versus Samsung verdict was released where Samsung were found guilty of willful infringement. $303m awarded by jury with Judge Gilstrap x1.5? willfull award on top to follow in a few weeks time following his seperate decision I assume.

By comparison Nanoco's pre-court settlement a mere $150m less $60m legal funders share, 40%, net $90m.

Let's see how things pan out in the coming weeks would be a good comparison to had Nanoco proceeded to court and won.

There are strong similarities between the two companies here with a history of share dilution, limited cash balances, although Netlist has self funded the legal cash and has $14m cash at bank which is similar to Nanoco pre settlement cash balance.

Also noticed that Netlist had huge price spikes of over 1,000% in a matter of weeks could Nanoco following organic deal announcements follow a similar path?

BT time to deliver or pack your suitcase!

Netlist, Inc.
3.40 USD +3.10 (1,033.33%)all time
21 Apr, 19:07 BST • Disclaimer

Nanoco share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 |

V: D: 20230607 02:49:31